Originally Posted by Ishizu

Nonetheless, Mr. Cameron’s success proved fleeting, as the Labour party quickly regained its lead in the opinion polls, and the author of the article, in harmony with the Tory leader’s admirers, highlights at least three phenomena which can account for such a turnabout. First and foremost, he underlines the bad luck that brought about this failure. In fact, the politician had scheduled a trip to Rwanda between June and July 2007, whenhorrendous floods struckYorkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Oxfordshire, and he was consequently criticized for losing interest in domestic problems. Secondly, David Cameron had to cope with the legacy of his party and of its adverse image, (corruption, excessive harshness, greed and incompetence). In this respect, the journalist isn’t shy in mentioning the shortcomings of the Conservative party as a « radioactive legacy », a very strong phrase which draws attention to his cynicism. The author of the article even denounces the lack of discipline of Cameron’s fellow Members of Parliament, likening them to a « fractious rabble » (theses words also prove very disparaging and illustratethe journalist’s prejudice against the mainstream behaviour of the party). He endeavours to provide an account of the Conservative defeat in the by-elections (an election held between general elections to fill a vacancy for a parliamentary seat) by accusing David Cameron’s friends of deluding themselves. Indeed, according to him, they still think it’s necessary to weaken the far-right, nationalist British National Party, and don’t understand that they have to convince their former electorate who defected to the Labour party. Such reproaches look quite fierce and vehement, since phrases like « free-falling » or « cocked up » (a very informal verb) express the strength of his feelings thanks to hyperbole. Last but not least, the journalist admits that Mr. Cameron may have been mistaken when he tried to imitate Tony Blair’s political ploys at a time when the British people were tired of their Prime Minister. As a conclusion, the author of the article acknowledges that the English electorate is unlikely to promote the Tory candidate, because the Conservative leader fails to inspire confidence.


Unlike David Cameron, Gordon Brown was much criticized and regarded as an incompetent politician a few months ago. Indeed as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he wasn’t an articulate speaker at all and the journalist even describes him as being « cumbersome » in the House of Commons (the elected house of the British Parliament, composed of six hundred and fifty-nine Members of Parliament, representing single member constituencies), for he often tells lame or crude jokes and witticisms. The author of the article doesn’t hesitate to make fun of him by alluding to one of his most famous quips (it would be good to mention it !), thus hinting that he doesn’t have the wisdom and the discretion of a real statesman. Moreover, he reminds us of the Labour Party notoriety at the end of Tony Blair’s mandate. As a matter of fact, British citizens were fed up with a Prime Minister who had been governing for ten years (from 1997 to 2007) and of his followers , who are described cynically as « ayatollahs of Blairism », as if they were part of a high-ranking Moslem fanatic religious authority and didn’t allow anybody to question their political opinions.
Nevertheless, Mr. Blair’s legacy proved all the more beneficial as the Labour party was highly disciplined – the author of the article calls it « paranoic discipline ». This standpoint, couched in a derisive language, evidences their cohesion and unity in front of their opponents, but it may overstate their stern, strict behaviour. The Prime Minister’s main virtue, according to him, lies in the fact that he quickly grasped the British citizens’ weariness with Tony Blair and managed to appear as an innovator, who supported different policies. He is therefore compared all through the article to a conjurer who perfectly masters his « hat-trick[s] » and « manoeuvre[s] ». Politically he benefited from some tragic events which occurred in the United Kingdom (the floods, the various attempted terrorist attacks in 2007, the law surrounding cannabis use,…) to become less sectarian and to appear as a plainspoken, friendly politician who admires people's everyday heroism typically depicted in the British tabloid The Daily Mail. That’s why the journalist creates a humorous effect by comparing the current Prime Minister to a « bare-knuckles campaigner » (a slangy phrase which refers to his fiercely implacable character) who contrives to be more popular with some « symbolic pledges », as opposed to concrete decisions. However such behaviour has convinced the electorate; (sorry I took out the oblivious bit as it made the sentence unclear !) the voters have forgotten Mr. Brown’s shortcomings thanks to his amazing « sleight of hand ».



By way of conclusion, the author of the article addresses David Cameron as if they were close friends (he calls him « Dave ») (in fact Cameron is often refered to as "CMD" - Call Me Dave - as it is Cameron himself who likes to appear more like the man in the street)and gives him a piece of advice, trying to encourage him. The Tory leader has to be more self-confident and forward-looking ; if Gordon Brown decided to organize the general election now, his adversary probably would be in a difficult position. Nonetheless, the latter can stall for time, since the Prime Minister’s cabinet isn’t ready to face a difficult campaign.